Informing pandemic response in the face of uncertainty. An evaluation of the U.S. COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub (preprint)

Our ability to forecast epidemics more than a few weeks into the future is constrained by the complexity of disease systems, our limited ability to measure the current state of an epidemic, and uncertainties in how human action will affect transmission. Realistic longer-term projections (spanning more than a few weeks) may, however, be possible under defined scenarios that specify the future state of critical epidemic drivers, with the additional benefit that such scenarios can be used to anticipate the comparative effect of control measures. Since December 2020, the U.S. COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub (SMH) has convened multiple modeling teams to make 6-month ahead projections of the number of SARS-CoV-2 cases, hospitalizations and deaths. The SMH released nearly 1.8 million national and state-level projections between February 2021 and November 2022. SMH performance varied widely as a function of both scenario validity and model calibration. Scenario assumptions were periodically invalidated by the arrival of unanticipated SARS-CoV-2 variants, but SMH still provided projections on average 22 weeks before changes in assumptions (such as virus transmissibility) invalidated scenarios and their corresponding projections. During these periods, before emergence of a novel variant, a linear opinion pool ensemble of contributed models was consistently more reliable than any single model, and projection interval coverage was near target levels for the most plausible scenarios (e.g., 79% coverage for 95% projection interval). SMH projections were used operationally to guide planning and policy at different stages of the pandemic, illustrating the value of the hub approach for long-term scenario projections.

Evaluating targeted COVID-19 vaccination strategies with agent-based modeling (preprint)

We evaluate approaches to vaccine distribution using an agent-based model of human activity and COVID-19 transmission calibrated to detailed trends in cases, hospitalizations, deaths, seroprevalence, and vaccine breakthrough infections in Florida, USA. We compare the incremental effectiveness for four different distribution strategies at four different levels of vaccine availability, reflecting different income settings' historical COVID-19 vaccine distribution. Our analysis indicates that the best strategy to reduce severe outcomes is to actively target high disease-risk individuals. This was true in every scenario, although the advantage was greatest for the middle-income-country availability assumptions, and relatively modest compared to a simple mass vaccination approach for rapid, high levels of vaccine availability. Ring vaccination, while generally the most effective strategy for reducing infections, ultimately proved least effective at preventing deaths. We also consider using age group as a practical, surrogate measure for actual disease-risk targeting; this approach still outperforms both simple mass distribution and ring vaccination. We also find that the magnitude of strategy effectiveness depends on when assessment occurs (e.g., after delta vs. after omicron variants). However, these differences in absolute benefit for the strategies do not change the ranking of their performance at preventing severe outcomes across vaccine availability assumptions.